nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Attacks per round
Additional attacks The fact that (greater) cleaves follow any attack progression is a bug, that will be corrected with the upcoming 1.69 patch. they should all be made at the highest AB, i don't know if they are going to take Dual-wield penalties into account. I'm also not sure, if the fact that additional, magically granted attacks follow a subsequent -5 progression is the same bug, that right now as of 1.68 lets GC and WWA have a -5 progression; i.e.: it might as well be, that all additional attacks (haste, DP) might be at full AB with 1.69. someone with an english version of the game could check, how things behave in 1.69beta 10 and post a comment here. I think the new note about the additional attacks comes a little early and with some soon to be outdated info. this should at least be addressed in the article. what do you guys think? Gruftlord 19:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :That makes sense, I don't really know much about the upcoming patch, I just got tired of not knowing and finally got around to testing some of this stuff.RAMss 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) *I think you're right about this being changed in 1.69, but I don't have the time to double-check at the moment. As long as someone re-checks this before or shortly after 1.69 is released, it should be fine. (We shouldn't present 1.69 info as the current state of things until 1.69 is released.) --The Krit 18:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC) BTW, I think the info presented in this section is a bit too centered on the particular tests that someone did, to the point where the details are distracting. One thing in particular I find distracting is that after saying that bonus attacks are generated by feats, great cleave is singled out for some reason to state (again) that it produces bonus attacks. Why is that? And why are attacks of opportunity not mentioned at all? (Based on my earlier testing, they produce bonus and off-hand attacks the same way great cleave does. See Bug? AB and Attacks of Opportunity in BioWare's general NWN forum.) --The Krit 18:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC) AoO, cleave, and circle kick From my tests I have reached these conclusions. Would like verification before any changes to articles are made. AoO, Cleave, and Circle Kick work slightly different than the standard addition of attacks because they use a blow that could correspond to being within the main attacks. *When there are more main attacks to be conducted, each of the three replace the next blow (for attacks of opportunity and cleave this blow is conducted at full AB). Then an additional blow is added to the main hand bonus attacks. A replaced blow cannot be a special attack (disarm, knockdown, etc.). *If they are already triggered to occur in the main hand bonus or offhand parts of combat the blow just joins the regular progression. I am also unable to reproduce the Krit's bug AB progression and thus need a post 1.69 test to detect the bug/feature. WhiZard 22:14, January 18, 2010 (UTC) * I rechecked, and the bug is still there. I started with a base attack progression of :: Attack 1: +13 :: Attack 2: +8 :: Attack 3: +3 :: Off-hand 1: +13 :: Off-hand 2: +8 : : When an AoO got thrown into the mix, the attack at +3 disappeared: : :: Attack 1: +13 :: Attack 2: +8 :: AoO: +13 :: Attack 3: +13 :: Off-hand : : When an AoO got thrown into the off-hand mix, it was not at full base attack and an attack at +3 appeared: : :: Main hand :: Off-hand 1: +13 :: AoO: +8 :: Off-hand 2: +3 : : Attacks of opportunity taken with the main hand provide a greater benefit than they should, and those with the off-hand do not provide enough of one. --The Krit 20:59, January 20, 2010 (UTC) :*Does this differ from my description above? As far as I understand if it is within the main progression it replaces a blow (cleave and AoO make this replaced blow at full AB) and then adds an attack to the bonus mainhand progression. If it comes after it merely joins the corresponding progression as any other extra attack would. ::Perhaps the discrepancy I had with your old test was that you had all extra attacks at full AB (as they should have been at that time (pre 1.68)).WhiZard 22:35, January 20, 2010 (UTC) ::* I had a suspicion this was what you were describing, but you said you could not reproduce it. So I figured I would try another slightly different formatting of the data and let you decide if it is the same or not. (This time I went with 3 main hand attacks per round, while earlier I was doing 2 and 4.) I'm not sure I buy the discrepancy being "all extra attacks at full AB", as of the six examples in my old post, only one had more than one extra attack. So there might still be some detail being overlooked here. However, if you want to attribute the discrepancy to this, I won't dispute it. ::: ::: Maybe a good way to describe what happens is to say :::: "Attacks generated by combat add an attack to the end of the current progression (main hand or off-hand), but it is the next attack that gets treated as the generated attack. That is, the next attack gets the special label (e.g. "attack of opportunity") and may get special treatment, but any following attacks proceed as if that attack had been normal. The special treatment is only for main hand attacks and consists of using the full base attack." Then something about how the base attack progression resets itself after you reach your normal number of attacks per round. ::: Or maybe not. It might be confusing to everyone other than me, and I haven't checked to see if this is fully accurate. (For one thing, am I overlooking a way to generate attacks by combat other than via AoO, cleave, and circle kick? I'm not considering an "always" extra attack -- like haste's -- as being generated by combat.) If someone can come up with something accurate that makes sense to a large number of people, that would be good. --The Krit 04:06, January 22, 2010 (UTC) ::::*Does sound sort of confusing which is why I like the "replace" terminology better, as this way there is no need to mention the rest of the progression resumes. FYI, the circle kick attack is not made at full AB while in the main progression (making it different from cleave and AoO). I also have not been able to establish the order of precedence amongst the three. WhiZard 14:27, January 22, 2010 (UTC) :::::* Eh, my perception is probably still biased from trying to figure out what you meant by "replace" under the assumption that it did not mean what I had observed. The real test for clarity would come from someone who hasn't looked at such things themselves (i.e. the intended audience). --The Krit 00:06, January 24, 2010 (UTC) Add ubab to table? thinking it would be worthwhile to add another column to the main table for ubab attacks. opinions? s. Mysticjester 23:12, February 10, 2010 (UTC) * Probably a good idea. I was thinking that some other revisions might also be in order, but those might not happen for a while. --The Krit 03:46, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :* Added UBAB to table. WhiZard 23:14, February 11, 2010 (UTC) Still Bored An exception to this progression is made when free attacks are generated by activity (such as an attack of opportunity or a cleave attack). If a free attack is generated while the off-hand sequence is active, that free attack is converted to an off-hand attack and added to that sequence. If a free attack is generated while the main sequence is active, a fourth sequence of attacks is partially created. This fourth sequence suffers from dual-wielding penalties and can benefit from a monk's unarmed attack progression. It is only partially created, though, in that attacks in this sequence still occupy a spot in the main progression. Essentially, a regular attack is "promoted" and given the base attack of the fourth progression, but the following regular attack will be at -10 (or -6) relative to the attack prior to the promoted one. The number of attacks in the round is kept at the expected value by adding a free attack, to be taken when that sequence becomes active. If granted a bonus attack by a cleave or an attack of opportunity while attacking with an offhand weapon (or do you mean during a particular part of the flurry)? Pick One: *A) the bonus attack will be granted at the end of the flurry (or do you mean a fourth flurry is added/not added? Schrodinger anyone ;p) *as an offhand attack. (can we assume that as an off hand attack, using a light weapon in the main hand means that you gain the bonus of having a light weapon in the off hand? And don't explain what an off hand attack is when there is a perfectly good article on it. Just explain the differences on above question). *B) the bonus attack(s) will occur on the next attack (following the base attack progression) as an offhand attack using the attack bonus granted by the progression. The regular attack then occurs at the expected attack bonus. (Then there's the mess about regular attacks... and PROMOTIONS) so... -- 20:27, 14 March 2012 * I hate anonymous sigs! Okay, so if I understand correctly, the above is incorrect. : But you excluded some major details : I rechecked, and the bug is still there. I started with a base attack progression of :: Attack 1: +13 :: Attack 2: +8 :: Attack 3: +3 :: Off-hand 1: +13 :: Off-hand 2: +8 : This is a -2/-2? That means there is no numerical difference between the offhand attack and the first attack. Does changing this to -6/-10 make a difference? Yes, I believe you said it should. : In this case, you can describe this as: : The bonus attacks granted by Attack of Opportunity, Cleave, or Circle Kick have an attack bonus and occur in the following manner. For a character with a BAB of 20 and ONLY the improved two-weapon fighting feat. : Honestly, there is no better way to describe this behaviour than as such... it relies on too much jargon and description of game behaviours for me to adequately turn it into 3 sentences or less; and the jargon involved does not seem to actually exist. : (Meh, I can't post without noting... you should realize that you are not a good enough writer to adequately change most definitions into "gradeschool paragraph thingys" (the improper way of writing that people are taught in school). There are somethings that take far too many words to describe it as w/e... idk. Just kind of realize that not everything needs a rewrite... and that not every rewrite is for the best. : Meh... too tired of this to fix the table... : And just trying to note that well... you DO obfuscate things when you try to write in english. But this is tiresome to me now... writing sucks. And writing offensively while trying to reduce offense sucks. And being OCD sucks... and everything just bloody sucks. : 23:44, March 14, 2012 (UTC) :* With regards to "hate anonymous sigs", you could always create an account. Or some people just replace their IP address with a name. Either way, having each comment signed and dated makes it easier to keep track of things. --The Krit 00:10, March 15, 2012 (UTC)